Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1453
___________
FRANK RIVERA,
Appellant
v.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Frank Rivera, proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered on January 22, 2010,
granting the appellees motions to dismiss. For the reasons stated herein, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court.
In August 2009, Rivera filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections, several prison officials, and the prisons psychiatrists, raising claims under 42
U.S.C. 1983 for First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. Rivera is an inmate
confined in the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) at the SCI-Greene prison.
Rivera
complained that as a direct result of the excessive and incessant noise created by the officers
slamming doors every time they exit the housing pod after security rounds, he is awakened
from sleep every thirty minutes. He alleged that such inhumane conditions have deprived
him of adequate sleep and, that as a consequence, he has suffered from adverse effects on his
health such as stress, anxiety, fatigue and depression.
In an attempt to resolve the problem, Rivera verbally complained to the prison guards,
his counselor, and his psychiatrist on several occasions. He also filed several written
complaints to various prison officials. When his complaints failed to produce any results,
he timely filed Grievance #206769 on November 2, 2007. However, the grievance was
rejected by the Facility Grievance Coordinator because it exceeded the two-page limit.
Rather than amend the grievance to comply with the procedural requirements outlined in DC2
ADM 804, Rivera filed an appeal. Rivera received a response from the Secretarys Office
of Inmate Grievances and Appeals, notifying him that his appeal was filed without action
because his initial grievance failed to comply with the two-page limit. In response to the
denial of his appeal, Rivera filed the instant action seeking a declaratory judgment: 1)
enjoining the defendants from creating excessive noise; and 2) enjoining defendants Beard,
Folino, and the Department of Corrections from enforcing certain policies outlined in the
Department of Corrections handbook.
The Department of Corrections defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
Rivera failed to exhaust administrative remedies, among other secondary arguments.
Defendants Mohammad Khan and Eugene Polmueller, psychiatrists employed by the
Department of Corrections, joined the motion to dismiss, and separately filed their own
motion to dismiss, arguing that Rivera failed to state a claim against them. The District
Court granted both motions to dismiss, holding that Rivera had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Rivera filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Because this
appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Courts
order. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.
An inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing a civil action in
federal court. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738-39 (2001); see also Nyhuis v. Reno,
204 F.3d 65, 78 (3d Cir. 2000) (finding that exhaustion must occur before filing suit).
administrative remedies, we cannot reach the merits of his excessive noise claim at this time.
Additionally, Rivera asserted that the two-page procedural requirement itself violated
his First Amendment rights and that excluding conditions of confinement from being
reported as abuse also violated his constitutional rights. These constitutional claims are
without merit. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 95; Jones v. N.C. Prisoners Labor Union, Inc.,
433 U.S. 119, 129-31 (1977).
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the decision of the District Court. See 3d Cir.
LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.